CID permitted to detain Indian national under PTA

By Shehan Chamika Silva

Fort Magistrate Lanka Jayaratne yesterday allowed the CID to detain Marsili Thomas, Indian national, for three months under the custody of the CID for the purpose of more interrogation conducted under the prevention of terrorism Act. 

The Indian national was produced before court yesterday after being arrested by the CID at the residence of Namal Kumara.

The CID satisfied the court on the approval (detention order) that they obtained from the relevant authority to detain the suspect for three months under the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

When questioned by the Magistrate as to why he was at the Namal Kumara's place, the prosecution informed that according to the statements of the suspect he wanted to inform Namal Kumara an attempt to kill him.

Based in the suspect's statement, the prosecution also informed that the suspect earlier immigrated to Sri Lanka as he had death threats from one non-government organisation in India called 'RSS'. Initially He was in Sri Lanka on tourist visa and later had applied to stay under asylum which is to date not obtained.

The Magistrate also pointed out the prosecution about the legal actions that can be used against him for violating the immigration laws as well.

When questioned, the CID also said that the suspect had survived in Sri Lanka by seeking donations from churches and also time to time conducting some tution classes on accountancy for students.

However, the prosecution also sought Court to produce the suspect before relevent medical officers and clinics to get his mental and other sicknesses tested.

Also the Magistrate ordered the cid to produce the suspect before Court in one month's time on october 23 for observation.

Meanwhile, the Court also directed DIG Nalaka de Silva to appear before the Government's Analyst Department today (28) 10 a.m. for the voice identification test to be conducted in respect with the allegations of a conspiracy leveled against DIG Nalaka De Silva with the discovery of a certain phone conversation.

Bond Inquiry: WM Mendis & Co’s lawyers level serious allegations against CID and AG's dept

In these recorded statements the three individuals had stated that they were asked to give false statements to the CID by their lawyer

ASG Kodagoda to respond on allegations in next hearing 

By Shehan Chamika Silva

During yesterday's Magisterial inquiry conducted into the controversial bond scam, serious allegations had been leveled against the Attorney General's Department and the Criminal Investigation Department by the defense counsel, over the alleged recording of statements from three individuals of W.M. Mendis & Company by force.

In these recorded statements the three individuals had stated that they were asked to give false statements to the CID by their lawyer.

The allegation against two senior officers of the AG’s Department was that they had summoned this particular lawyer and asked to provide some documents of WM Mendis & Company to prevent taking action against him, based on those statements in which he was accused of instructing his client to give false evidence to the CID.

At the onset of the inquiry, it was explained in court about several incidents alleged to have taken place during the last few weeks.

According to the defense counsel, there were three employees of WM Mendis & Company who had initially given statements to the CID.

These three employees had been called again to the CID to record further statements during last August.

In these statements, in a confessional manner, the employees had said that they were instructed to give false statements to the CID by their lawyer (Mr. Chandana Perera).

However, President's Counsel Upul Jayasuriya who appeared yesterday on behalf of these three employees informed the court that his clients were intimidated by the CID from time to time, threatening to remand them if they did not give statements favouring the prosecution.

PC Jayasuriya also leveled allegations against the CID regarding the manner in which some officers had forcibly recorded statements from his clients, which is legally wrong.

He informed the court that his clients are no longer willing to give statements to the CID at the department, but would be ready to do it in the court premises.

President's Counsel Wasantha Navaratne Bandara appeared on behalf of Mr. Chandana Perera (Attorney-at-law of three WM Mendis & Company employees).

PC Bandara said following the alleged forcible recording of statements from those three employees by the CID, their lawyer Chandana Perera had been summoned to the Attorney General's Department by two senior officials of the AG's department, where they informed him of his clients' recent statements, accusing him of instructing to give false evidence.

PC Bandara also informed Court that Mr. Chandana Bandara was then allegedly threatened by the two officials of the AG's Department that his cloak can be removed if the CID files action against him over the incident that he instructed his clients to give false statements.

PC Bandara also said that in compromise to that and to prevent taking legal action against him, the two AG'S Department officials had asked Mr. Chandana Perera to bring the relevant cheques relating to WM Mendis & Company (as evidence) to the prosecution and to accept that they knew about the abbreviations of Ravi K, RW and NR.

PC was of the view that the Attorney General can only exercise powers vested on him by law, hence, such a demand would be an unlawful effort by the prosecution.

It was said that the counsel had already lodged complaints regarding this matter and sent copies and the affidavits to the Attorney General as well.

However, Senior Additional Solicitor General Yasantha Kodagoda completely rejected the allegations put forward against the Attorney General's Department and sought copies of the complaints and the affidavits of the individuals who are complaining in this regard, to peruse and respond to the allegations at the next court hearing.

Meanwhile, Perpetual Treasuries Ltd. owner Arjun Aloysius and its CEO Kasun Palisena were also ordered to be re-remanded till October 11 by the magistrate over the magisterial inquiry in which they were accused of abetting and conspiring with Arjuna Mahendran to misappropriate public funds worth Rs. 688 million during the Bond auction held on February 27, 2015.

Perpetual Treasuries Ltd. de-facto owner Arjun Aloysius and its CEO Kasun Palisena were also re-remanded by the Fort Magistrate till October 11 over the parallel magisterial inquiry conducted relating to the Bond scam on deleting phone call data from Perpetual Treasuries Ltd. voice recording system and fabricating evidence to the Bond Commission.

B report reveals: Voucher relating to Rs. 10 million cheque paid to Ravi K among destroyed

By Shehan Chamika Silva

Filling a B report in Court the prosecution also informed court yesterday that according to a statement given by a WM Mendis & Company’s finance officer, the ‘voucher’ relating to the Rs. 10 million cheque, which was paid to the ‘Global Towers Company’- which has a connection to Former Minister Ravi Karunanayake- was also among those destroyed vouchers.

The Prosecution has stated this based on a statement given by Sujith Alwis (Finance Manager of WM Mendis & Company), who had confessed before the CID on August 31, 2018.

He had also revealed that he was aware of the fact that Arjun Aloysius had instructed WM Mendis & Company CEO, Suneth Abeykoon in the latter part of 2017 to destroy the voucher relating that particular payment as Mr. Karunanayake had received the money through Mr. Sinnaih.

    

WM Mendis & Co. has destroyed 102 original vouchers made to third parties: ASG Kodagoda

Need access to its main data base to search for those transactions: ASG

Can't give access to entire system due to business sensitive private information: WM Mendis Counsel

By Shehan Chamika Silva

Additional Solicitor General Yasantha Kodagoda today revealed that some 102 original vouchers relating to the transactions between WM Mendis & Company and third parties had been destroyed and replaced by some Finance officers of the company upon the instructions of its CEO in November 2017, while the Bond Commission was in progress.

The ASG revealed this based on the confessional statements given by three officers of WM Mendis & Company namely, Sujith Alwis (Finance Manager), Buddi Sankalpa Perera (Audit Manager) and Sivasundaram Harisam (officer at Finance Division) to the CID recently.

Earlier, WM Mendis & Company had given a set of vouchers relating to the transactions it made with third parties to the CID for its investigation, which conducted into the alleged suspicious transactions that Perpetual Treasuries Ltd had made with its related company, WM Mendis & Company to release money/payments to third parties.

However, according to the statements given by those officers, some of these vouchers (physical documents) had been already replaced altering its true transaction details in November before handing them over to the CID.

ASG Kodagoda said, these three officers who had confessed, had also been involved in the destroying process of the 102 vouchers upon the instructions of their CEO at the Board Room of the Company by using a shredding machine.

At the onset of the inquiry, ASG Kodagoda drew the Court's attention to an incident that the CID and the officers of the Government Analysts Department had to undergo when deploying an investigation at the WM Mendis & Company over its central computer data server.

The CID had deployed this exercise upon the direction of the court to get a cloned copy of the data base in expectation of searching all details relating the payment system of WM Mendis & Company.

According to ASG Kodagoda, Chief Operating Officer of WM Mendis & Company, Savith Kalupathirana had obstructed the government officers to conduct their investigation when the officers went to get a clone copy of the server.

The ASG further said that WM Mendis & Company had then provided the CID a lap top containing data relating to its payment system by copying from the main server to get the cloning done.

However, the ASG was of the view that what the prosecution specifically required to do is to get a clone copy of the main data server to compare with the vouchers that the CID already have and to see the nature of those particular 102 transactions and more.

However, the Counsel who appeared for WM Mendis & Company denied the allegation and said that they have provided the CID full cooperation.

The Counsel was of the view that their payment system and the data base was not separated and therefore, there was a difficulty in providing a third party to get a copy of its server, since it comprised with also business sensitive and private information about their clients and employees.

Considering both parties requests, Fort Magistrate Lanka Jayaratne directed to get down the experts from the Government Analyst department and the company which provided services to the data system to understand how the data system of WM Mendis & Company can be cloned.

Meanwhile, ASG Kodagoda also invited the Court to consider taking legal action against Chief Operating Officer of WM Mendis & Company, Savith Kalupathirana, who had allegedly obstructed the government officers duties at WM Mendis & Company premises over the offence of Contempt of Court for not obeying the court order. He also pointed out that the CID can also parallelly initiate actions against him under the section 183 of the Penal Code for obstructing their duties.

Meanwhile, Perpetual Treasuries Ltd owner Arjun Aloysius and its CEO Kasun Palisena were also ordered to be re-remanded till September 27 by the magistrate over the magisterial inquiry in which they were accused of abetting and conspiring with Arjuna Mahendran to misappropriate public funds worth Rs. 688 million during the Bond auction held on February 27, 2015.

Perpetual Treasuries Ltd defacto owner Arjun Aloysius, its CEO Kasun Palisena were also re-remanded by the Fort Magistrate till September 27 over the parallel magisterial inquiry conducted relating to the Bond scam on deleting phone call data from Perpetual Treasuries Ltd voice recording system and fabricating evidence to the Bond Commission.

On the instructions of Senior Additional Solicitor General Yasantha Kodagoda, Senior Deputy Solicitor General Haripriya Jayasundara, Senior State Counsel lakmini Girihagama and State Counsel Sahanya Narampanawa appeared for the prosecution, while President's Counsel Kalinga Indatissa, President's Counsel Anil Silva, Senior Counsel Jeewantha Jayathilake, Counsel Ralitha Amarasena and Counsel Theruni Fernando appeared for the defense. 

Kurunegala HC remand order on Johnston 'legally wrong': Romesh de Silva PC

Kurunegala HC remand order on Johnston 'legally wrong': Romesh de Silva PC

Kurunegala Judge had said that it was the practice of the Court to do so. "Surely, that cannot be the law," said PC

By Shehan Chamika Silva

Filing a revision application in the Court of Appeal, President's Counsel Romesh de Silva today contended that the order which was given by the Kurunegala High Court Judge remanding former Minister Johnston Fernando, pending the conclusion of the trial, was legally wrong.

President's Counsel was of the view that the alleged High Court order was wrong on the face of it as the same court had previously enlarged Mr. Johnston Fernando( accused -petitioner) twice before and after the indictments being served.

According to the President's Counsel, initially, the prosecution had filed a B report (B 735/15) against three suspects namely Johnston Fernando, Mohammed Shakeer and Nalin Fernando over an alleged purchase of certain goods from Laksathosa Limited violating the Public Property Act in Kurunegala Magistrate's Court.

Later, (May 6, 2015) Kurunegala Magistrate's Court refused to grant bail on the suspects as the law requires bail to be granted by a high court judge unless for exceptional circumstances.

Then the suspects filed revision bail application in Kurunegala High Court, where the suspects were released on conditional bail.(May 28, 2015)

Subsequently, the Attorney General on September 6, 2016, indicted the suspects in High Court under section 386 of the Penal Code and the section 5(1) of the Public Property Act.

Mr. De Silva said that his client at this point pleaded not guilty for the charges levelled against him and subsequently on the same date he was released on bail again by the same High Court without any objection of the State (prosecution).

"After some time, the Kurunegala High Court Judge was transferred and the case was taken up before a new Judge. And when the trial of the case was finally fixed to be heard daily, the new Judge ordered the suspect to be remanded till the conclusion of the trial proceedings, even though nobody made any request as such to do so", said Mr. De Silva PC.

According to the President's Counsel, while remanding the suspect the Kurunegala Judge had said that it was the practice of the Court to do so. "Surely that cannot be the law which violates the Bail Act. What we have to understand is that bail is the rule remand is the exception" stated Mr. De Silva PC.

In the petition, the accused-petitioner had stated that the given High Court order which remanded the petitioner does not state specific reasons for such decision as it violates the Bail Act.

Petitioner has also stated that the Kurunegala High Court has no jurisdiction to remand the petitioner when the petitioner was granted bail twice from the same court before and after the indictments being served.

Mr. De Silva also contended that it was a matter of being free of wrongful deprivation as the High Court Judge had interfered with petitioner's personal liberty.

Therefore, the petitioner has sought in the petition from the Court of Appeal to issue notices to the respondent of the petition, to set aside the Kurunegala High Court order made remanding him pending the conclusion of the ongoing trial, and to make an interim order releasing him on bail.

The petitioner has stated the Attorney General as the respondent of the revision application.

The matter was taken up for inquiry before the Bench comprising Judge Achala Wengappully and Judge Janak de Silva.

Appearing for the Attorney General, Senior State Counsel Nayomi Wickramasekara informed the court that the respondent has already sought for sufficient time to respond as the Senior Deputy Solicitor General who handled the case was at the Kurunegala High Court.

Subsequently, the application was fixed for support tomorrow 1.30 p.m. by the Court of Appeal.

Special HC serves indictments to Gotabaya Rajapaksa and six others

By Shehan Chamika Silva

Former Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa and six others who were indicted over the alleged misappropriation of public funds for the construction of the D. A. Rajapaksa memorial museum at Weeraketiya, were today released on bail by the  Special High Court after serving indictments to the suspects.

Each suspect was released on a cash bail of Rs.100,000 and two sureties of Rs.1 million each.

The indictments were handed over to the suspects and the case was postponed to October 9.

The seven accused were indicted by the Attorney General at the HC Trial-at-Bar under the Public Property Act and the Penal Code on charges of abusing public property

Accused Gotabaya Rajapaksa and six others were served with indictments on seven counts.

Counts stated in the indictments as follows:

First Count: Harshan de Silva (2), Bhadra Udulawathi(3), Sudammika Keshinda Attigalle(4), Saman Kumara Abraham Galappatti(5) and  Mahinda Saliya(6), who were members of the director board of the Sri Lanka Land Reclamation and Development Corporation (SLLRDC) were accused over spending SLLRDC money (public property), vested with their authority,  for a construction of D.A. Rajapaksa Memorial Auditorium in Weerakaetiya.

They were accused of dishonestly misappropriating Rs. 33, 900, 000 belonged to SLLRDC, during September 3, 2013 – February 4 2015, under section 113(a)-(conspiracy), section102-(abetment) and section 388- (Criminal breach of trust) of the Penal Code with section 5(1) of the Public Property Act.

Second Count: Five Accused who were liable under the first count, were also indicted under section 32- (Liability for an act done by several persons in furtherance of common intention), section 388 of the Penal Code by the prosecution.

Third Count: First accused, former Defense Minister Gotabaya Rajapaksa, was held liable by the prosecution for abetting the 1^st,2^nd,3^rd,4^th,5^th and 6^th accused to commit the alleged spending for the construction of D.A. Rajapaksa Memorial Auditorium in Weerakaetiya. He was accused under section 102- (abetment) and 388- (Criminal breach of trust) of the Penal Code with section 5(1) of the Public Property Act.

Fourth Count: Seventh accused, Shrimathi Mallika Kumari, was also indicted for the offence of abetment under section 102 and section 388 of the Penal Code with Section 5(1) of the Public Property Act.

Fifth Count: Accused, Harshan de Silva and Shrimathi Mallika Kumari were also held liable for allocating another sum of Rs. 5,989,333 belonged to the SLLRDC for the construction of the D.A. Rajapaksa Memorial Auditorium during November 28, 2014 – February 2, 2015. Duo was accused of dishonestly misappropriating the public property (money) under the section 5(1) of the Public Property Act with 113(a)- (conspiracy), section 102- (abetment), and section 388- (Criminal breach of trust) of the Penal Code.

Sixth and Seven Counts: Second accused Harshan de Silva, were also held liable for Criminal Breach of Trust under the section 388 of the Penal Code for the alleged spending of the amount Rs. 5,989,333 belonged to the SLLRDC during November 28, 2014 – February 2, 2015, while, seven accused Shrimathi Mallika Kumari was also held liable for the abetment over the offence committed during the same time period under the section 102, 388 of the Penal Code with the Public Property Act.

   

Public Property Act – Section 5 (1)

Any person who dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable public property or commits the offence of criminal breach of trust of any movable public property shall be guilty of an offence and shall upon conviction be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not less than one year but not exceeding twenty years, and with a fine of one thousand rupees or three times the value of the property in respect of which such offence was committed, whichever amount is higher.

Section 102 – Penal Code (abetment)

Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.

13A (conspiracy) – Penal Code

If two or more persons agree to commit or abet or act together with a common purpose for or in committing or abetting an offence, whether with or without any previous concert or deliberation, each of them is guilty of the offence of conspiracy to commit or abet that offence, as the case may be. A person within Sri Lanka can be guilty of conspiracy by

agreeing with another person who is beyond Sri Lanka for the commission or abetment of any offence to be committed by them or either of them, or by any other person, either within or beyond Sri Lanka, and for the purposes of this subsection as to an offence to be committed beyond Sri Lanka," offence " means any act which if done within Sri Lanka would be an offence under this Code or under any other law

Section 388 – Penal Code

Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits " criminal breach of trust."